Rosemary so pretty

Just got to watch the extended video for the first time...

If Karelian isn't taken down in that instance, you might as well not bother to have rules or stewards.

There was a 3/1 shot standout on pace figures that won the race before Gio Ponti ... instead of betting him to win, I bet a cold double into Gio Ponti because it was paying $15. In other words - why bet the 3/1 shot to win when you can play a cold double and get that plus 4/5 odds on Gio Ponti to win a race where he figured to be 1/5 or less.

Anyway, I needed Gio Ponti to be put up in order to cash - so I wanted him to be put up .... but that would have been an absolutely gutless DQ by the stewards.

Take the rule book and shove it ... what happened in the stretch run of that race was good race riding by the jockey of the winner. Gio Ponti had every oppertunity to go by and the contact was very minimal if it even happened at all.

Jocks can pretty much get away with murder in the early stages of a race, you know, the part of the race where actual trouble is more significant. But they have to maintain a straight course in a desperate driving finish and many times can't even get away with brushing...it's a huge pet peeve of mine.

As Chuck points out with the actual rules, contact is immaterial. Karelian herded Gio Ponti 5 paths across the track and then photoed him by a sheet of paper. It's a foul, and it's grossly apparent. If they ding-donged back and forth a path or two it would be one thing. But if you can't see that Gio Ponti's momentum is being carried wider and wider by the foe, I'm surprised. And as a proviso, I don't care for Gio Ponti or Clement.

I can see it...

And I have a name for it...

It's called horse racing.

Let them play Steven .. let them play. He had every chance to go by if he was good enough. Her race riding cost GP maybe a neck in momentum tops.

I'm very much into letting them play and all for race-riding as part of the action. But isn't there an inherent and actionable difference between floating a horse wide in a turn... or aggressively riding for position like Mig did with Chavez in the Whirlaway... and failing to maintain a straight course during a stretch duel?

If indeed Karelian cost Gio Ponti a neck in momentum, by definition, that's a violation. As measured in "authentic physical space", it certainly would be enough to reverse the order of finish. If I'm viewing this as a steward, what I see is Gio Ponti denied the opportunity to maintain his course to the finish by the foe to his inside who was constantly impeding his forward progress.

Migliore wasn't agressively riding for position .. he outbroke 85ina50 and simply dove inside to cut him off and take his path away and almost put him down.

It was a very flagrent foul that would have had a huge impact on 85 in a 50's performance had his equipment not broke ... and, his equipment probably did break because that very flagrent foul caused Chavez to panic and grab instead of getting dropped to the ground.

He didn't actually put Chavez on the ground though ... so no, he shouldn't have been DQ'd.

Cohen .. was also not riding for position when he gunned his mount several paths to the inside to bump 85 in a 50 and pin him on the rail. Again, a very flagrent foul that would have seriously hindered 85 in a 50's chances had he not bolted from broken equipment.

He didn't actually put Chavez over the fence though - or even cause the horse to bounce off the rail... so no, he shouldn't have been DQ'd.

Gio Ponti was as courageous in the stretch run yesterday as he was in his last turf race when he seemingly had the bum Interpatation put away - but Interpatation fought back to win by 2 lengths.

Well, we have very different interpretations of the beginning of the Whirlaway...

In what way?

If you don't think Chavez was intentionally cut-off by Migliore after breaking a bit slow you're absolutely blind. I hope that isn't what you're talking about.

So, I assume you mean that Cohen was just riding for position when he gunned his mount inside, bumped with Chavez, and pinned him near the rail before the turn?

Ramon, "I could see it going either way."

When they showed the camera angle at 4:51 into this link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVxZd6Pfr1E


I thought there was zero chance of them doing anything ... but, the camera angle they kept showing from higher up after that looked worse.

On the angle at 4:51 I would have said there was no chance of a take down - at the later angle - I thought there was an 80 percent chance of one.

I would've taken him down. I realize there was no contact, but you shouldn't be able to drift over seven paths in deep stretch, win by a nose and stay up.

While I agree with your conclusion again if you read the rule, contact is never mentioned. If the race was a 10 claimer the winner would have been taken down in a heartbeat.

I know, I'm referring to what DrugS said about contact.

(5) If a horse or jockey jostles another horse, the aggressor shall be disqualified, unless the jostle was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey or had no impact upon the outcome of the race.

Section of the rules dealing with contact though this is the FL rule which may be worded different in NY

I think the horse should've come down. I've seen plenty of no contact takedowns.

I thought he was 80% to come down after seeing the up-top head on angle, I wanted him to come down so I could cash my double, according to the rules he should have come down.

As a bettor though, my stance is F' the F'ing rules. It's a desperate finish - let them play.

I'm not quite one of those guys like DRF's Dick Jeradi who believes there should never be a takedown for any reason - only jockey fines and purse redistributions ... but, I would say I disagree with most takedowns.

The fact is that the most worthless and meaningless trouble that can occur to a horse in a race happens in the late stages when the horses are all decelerating. Yet, a slight foul there is going to result in a DQ.

Horses who get fouled in an earlier and far, far, far more important stage of the race often run so poorly that these fouls get a pass because the assumption is they performed so poorly that the foul didn't matter. You pretty much have to dislodge the rider from his mount for a takedown to occur at some places...unless it happens in deep stretch.

And the problem is that if the same thing happens in a maiden race next Friday, the winner will come down and there is no explaination from the stewards. They should be forced to make public a document regarding every inquiry or claim of foul with the rule stated in the case of a takedown or the reasoning behind a no call. This is a easily accomplished solution to a tricky problem in the perception issue of racing. While there will always be disagreements in judgement situations it would at the very least force some accountability in the stewards stand, make them actually know what rules they are supposed to be enforcing and add transparency to the process while costing nothing more than ink and paper. Naturally this will never happen.

A lot of what you said is true but the idea that jockeys would police themselves (which is what would have to happen in the land of no DQ's) is crazy. The white elephant in the room that everyone either ignores or simply isnt aware of is that in many jurisdictions the stewards themselves dont know or understand the rules properly and the facade of stewards accreditation makes this problem even worse. There are some people who have completed the Stewards accredadition program who simply arent bright enough to understand the rules or would have a hard time reading the rulebook, let alone comprehend it.

The problem isnt the rules, it is the inconsistent application of them.

I agree that a lot of these decisions are inconsistent.

I also wish they'd consistantly take fewer horses down.